Self Review Do you?

I recently wrote, on another website users comments page, that if he read his poems, and felt totally comfortable with what he'd written in terms of his emotional reaction, then chances were that he hadn't pushed himself to honestly express something.

I said that in reaction to a well written, but philisophically and emotionally [from my point of view] empty poem, and it got me thinking.

There are not absolutes in writing, and I do not savour being general, but in my opinion, based purely on how I feel when i read my own poems, the ones I'm really proud of are the ones that i really feel have something important to say, in a way that makes reading them for those who understand the message, slightly akward. I am left in a state of self review or consideration of some aspect of life.

I think good writing should be like this and I wanted to know what some of you thought.

I have tried to critique and reveiw my own poetry like I was not the writer, but to no avail. It seems the ones I am really proud of are the ones that don't get a lot of feedback, but the ones that I didn't really think was my best work [the ones I rewrote several times and then posted them] was the ones that got alot of feedback on. I, as a writer have to like my work or I won't post it. Sometimes, if it sounds odd to me, I will let some of my friends read it and give me their opinion of it. And if their response is positive, then even if I am unsure of it, I will post it anyway. I am rather insecure in my talent. Sometimes, I will just save a poem and after a week or two, reread it and make changes or let it be for another few weeks. I have several poems that I feel aren't worthy of posting. I have rewritten some of my poems and posted them, but I still have a folder full of ones that just don't settle well on my mind.

I hope you understand what I am saying. Sometimes, I don't think I make myself clear.

I believe you are right kevin. I know a playwright who once said about writing that when writing a play, especially since the action must be performed on stage, that the writer must think of the most extreme action to a situation and use that, wether it be extreme in action or extreme in no action or whatever, it must be extreme. Only then will the audience truly be shocked into feeling by the performance of the play. I think you are saying the same thing about poetry.

I have always wondered about how the delivery of a message affects the acceptance or rejection of a perceived truth, whether it is objective or subjective. Poetry can deliver a feeling in less words than a legal document or a scientific thesis. I remember there was a thread on this board debating how many poets there are on this site. Many of us romanticize poetry setting our sites higher than anyone can reach. I see nothing wrong with that as long as we can respect everyone aiming for the same goal.

The world today is viewed from many different angles, and I believe I do live in my own little world. While the scientist say the overall temperature of the globe is rising there seems to be a lack of passion for the truth. Mainstream politics is guided by rhetoric. Most philosophic poets have left their mark on the course of history whether they are writing from personal experience, or dreaming of the way things could be

Wow, thanks everyone, the 5 posts above my own are worth dozens of thoughtless ones, I always wish for such honest interesting opinions.

Most of you got what i was speaking about I think, but Abby, you totally blew me away with your post! It's rare to read a short piece of writing that infers twice as much as it says, and your post above, though not obviously one of suggestion and wisdom, is loaded in my opinion with so much experience I had to read it twice.

I am totally going to check out your work, which is something I have not done for anyone on this site in months.

Please keep discussing.

A lot of times, I feel my best poems are the ones I step outside to write. The ones I like most are fiction that I've written as though they are non-fiction, historical fiction, or just from someone else perspective.

I especially love writing historical fiction because I know that as long as I induce good rhythm and play with rhyme scheme, that even if the reader doesn't understand, they can't say it's not a good poem. For example, "Freaks on Parade", one of my latest. It's about the practice of ancient Romans (and some other cultures) of having a parade through the streets of town after a war is won. They brought back animals from the place they conquered, and all their treasures, and tied the military leaders up to make them walk, naked, through the streets and be mocked, and they would march them all the way to to stadiums to be eaten by lions or whatever.

I said all that to say, all that stuff I just told you about history is concrete fact. My rhyme and rhythm of the poem are well-worked (I am saying for myself), so I am proud of that poem no matter what's said of it, because I know that it couldn't be done much better than it was. See what I'm saying?
PV

I think good writing is defined by the person who wrote it. If it came from the heart, why can't it be good writing? Even though it probably won't receive any literary merit ...

In self review I always think I`m not using a large enough vocabulary or some vague deep hidden meaning like I read on this site many times , but then I think like Bob said I want my reader to understand what I`m saying and feeling I guess I write like I think in normal everyday language,I don`t like to read a poem and then think "what did any of that mean?" I think motivating the reader to FEEL is more important. (to me anyway)

In self review of my own writing, if i can not keep a reader on the edge of thier chair, or jolt thier mind in some way, then my work is not compleate, just abandoned. i beleive in captivation from the title to the last word.